Going… Going… Gone

The usually secret warfare by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton has become open war and direct attacks against Hillary – straight from the Obama campaign apparatus. Yesterday the attacks from the Obama campaign against Hillary (shades of 2008!) became blatant, not disguised, attacks.

“The increasingly wounded animal which is Barack Obama and his Dimocrats are waging a secret war on Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is more popular that Barack Obama and his sleeve yanking wife. Dimocrats are terrified of what the voters will do in November 2010.

The fear of Hillary Clinton is growing. Hillary Clinton is increasingly viewed as a threat because she can be the 44th person to take the oath of office (Grover Cleveland had two non-consecutive terms, so Hillary can be the 44th person to take the oath of office and be 44 still). The secret war has begun.”

Republicans and Conservatives should take a clue from Ms Tantaros – utilize the history of the 2008 primaries and what was done to Hillary Clinton to expose the intolerant bullies who pose as progressives.[snip]

Hannity would make a stronger case against Barack Obama if he would invoke the nastiness of the Obama campaign against Hillary and stop the nastiness against Hillary himself.[snip]

Sean Hannity began with a tedious recitation of a Washington Post story published that very day. The Washington Post story was a hit piece against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hannity saw the article as another opportunity to bash and beat the Clintons. Andrew Breitbart was not a fool however. Breitbart saw the hit for what it was.

HANNITY: All right, Breitbart, Hillary knew nothing. A conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, you get back in, no problem.

BREITBART: Well, I find it strange that this is coming out after the — what happened with the plane bomber over Christmas. I think what you have here is a case of finger-pointing within the administration. And perhaps some — some turmoil going on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is a huge piece. It’s written very negatively against Hillary Clinton, and there’s innuendo and implications in there that somehow she knew something when it looks like it was the Department of Homeland security that issued this waiver.[snip]

This is a guy who treated a surf board accident with his kid more seriously than he treated the underwear bomber. He went out to play golf once he found out about, you know, what had occurred. But when he found out that a friend’s kid’s chin got a cut on it, he quit his golf outing.[snip]

I think that, quite frankly, Hillary Clinton, if she were in charge, would actually be a hell of a lot tougher than Barack Obama is. And perhaps that’s what this entire article in The Washington Post is about, is that she’s been standing off to the side and allowing for these people to hang themselves with their inept behavior.”

As we wrote then, and Andrew Brietbart understands, this is a secret war waged by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton. “There is a secret war of attacks by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton but Hannity is too busy hating to see it. The more Obama attacks, the more coy Hillary Clinton becomes. Her laughter can be heard throughout Washington.”

The Obama people are very much aware that during the health care debacle “Bill and Hillary say as little as possible and issue bland emails. Barack Obama would like a massive publicity tour of support but Bill and Hillary only say the obvious – a defeat on healthcare will bring the White House columns down on Obama’s already scarred head. When disaster strikes, Hillary dances away to work her magic. She keeps her distance while doing her job and saving the world from the Obama boobery. When Obama has a publicity stunt to unveil, Hillary dances to work in Europe or Asia or anywhere but near the ground zero which is the big zero at 1600 Pennsylvania. Obama and other Hillary haters are beginning to take notice”

Hildebrand lied repeatedly about the control and influence Harold Ickes exercised in the Rules and By-laws Committee and did not mention the cabal of Obama operatives (secret and not so secret) that worked against democracy in the process. Hildebrand also refused to acknowledge the legitimate scams and flaws detailed by Hillary supporters and voters. Hildebrand apparently is not aware that elections are about voters, not candidates. Elections are about voters choosing candidates and elected officials – not about candidates. It’s about the voters.

Hildebrand sought to make elections about candidates. In his most direct attack on Hillary Clinton, Hildebrand demanded that Hillary Clinton herself either refute or confirm the statements of the voters and campaign workers who make a strong case against Obama’s thugs and intimidation and other abuses of the process.

Hildebrand also tried to pretend there were no complaints filed with officials (who did nothing for fear of race-baiting and the DNC) at the time. For Hildebrand the fact that Obama JournoListers said nothing about the abuses means the abuses did not occur. For Hildebrand the fact that secret Obama supporters, like Howard Dean and Donna Brazile did nothing about the abuses but pretend to be neutral officials from the Democratic Party, means the abuses did not occur. But those in charge pretended to be neutral but we know they were in Obama’s circus tent – race-baiting:

Hildebrand wants to “smoke out” Hillary Clinton into open warfare with Barack Obama or into a dispute with her own most loyal supporters. As if. Hillary is not that stupid and neither are we. We know the process is fixed. We know that Obama thugs are ostensibly in control at the DNC and the local party organizations. We also all understand we have different roles to engage. Obama shills like Al Sharpton, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile (she kept her job at CNN, Hillary Supporters like Carville were fired) played their “neutral” roles during 2008, but we know what they really were.

(Sharpton, secretly to Obama: “I’m gonna do whatever I gotta do to help you… I won’t endorse you or not endorse you.”). The JournoListers, including some supposed Hillary supporters, played their phony roles. Some are exposed now. But… We are still uncovering, still investigating, still finding out who was who and who was doing what. Eventually we will have a list of all the 2×4 Schumers and the secret supporters and the back-stabbers and those who worked with Ted Kennedy/Daschle/Pelosi/Kerry, in secret, with the JournoListers, to thwart the will of the Democratic rank and file voter. Then we’ll all make our move.

Here’s thug Hildebrand baiting Hillary in yesterday’s cablecast:

Hildebrand and the JournoListers and the PINOs and the rest will attempt to rewrite history and declare that Hillary was in control or influential in the Rules and By-laws Committee. But Youtube documents how delegates elected by voters were stolen by Democratic Party officials to gift the nomination to a man who was not even on the ballot, not even a candidate (and the “rules” respecting votes for those voting in favor of “not committed” were debased and violated as well). The theft was done in the open with JournoListers applauding and secret Obama DNC officials squealing with delight. The voters were robbed. The candidate of the voters was robbed.

“If you hear the dogs, keep going.If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they’re shouting after you, keep going.

Don’t ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

Even in the darkest of moments, ordinary Americans have found the faith to keep going.”

The Obama thugs can play their masquerade on the Titanic all they want. We won’t fall for their games and cheap diversions. Hillary supporters will continue to investigate. Hillary supporters will continue to speak out. Hillary supporters will continue to prepare. Then we’ll make our move – when we are ready to do so.

170 thoughts on “Going… Going… Gone”

The White House has quietly launched an effort to confront the political backlash along the Gulf Coast over its handling of the BP oil spill – giving special attention to Florida, the only state in the region President Barack Obama won in 2008 and one he will need again when he runs for re-election in 2012.

The White House dispatched political and communications aides to the Gulf Coast states on July 12, with Alabama and Mississippi each receiving one, sources familiar with the effort said. Some aides went to Louisiana. Florida received four.

The battleground state will be a heavy lift. In interviews along the coast, Florida Democrats accused the administration of largely ignoring their calls and letters, and complained of a White House that’s out of touch.

Alex Sink, Florida’s chief financial officer and presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee, even characterized Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to the state as “a screw-up,” saying she was “embarrassed” by his speech.

“It was just so off-target and out of touch with the reality of what’s going on over there,” Sink said in an interview at the Florida Democratic Party headquarters in Tallahassee.

It’s the type of criticism the White House wants to avoid. The administration aides in Florida function similarly to a campaign. They do rapid response and media coordination, and they report back to senior aides in the West Wing in nearly real time about what they’re hearing on the ground.

The effort came about after the White House grew concerned over political damage from not having a permanent presence in the Gulf Coast states. Obama’s top advisers summoned a small group of young, former campaign staffers working in the administration to the White House for a meeting, said a source with knowledge of the meeting. No one mentioned 2012 specifically, but it was clear the administration’s approach to the oil spill had the potential to hurt the president’s re-election campaign, and the issue required more hands-on attention.”

2012 – why Hildebrand was sent out to attack Hillary and attempt to separate her from her supporters.

I don’t get tired of writing about how great your posts are so I hope you don’t get tired of reading it!

About Hildebrand, I didn’t see the clip of his interview but by what you’ve written it and what Segal said coupled with what I saw with my eyes and heard with my ears during the telvised RBS meetings -when I was glued to the TV and d@mn near destroyed it a couple of times – Hildebrand is a friggin’ liar.

Anyone who botheres to watch the tape will disocver that. The proof of the conspiracy is on tape, availble to anyone who wants to view it. Ickes was so clearly stunned at the RBC rulings.

Now if someone could just get some of that footage to the right hands.

Of course with obama sinking into quicksand, his lies finally coming out etc… it’s no wonder that the dims are fighting the only way they know how…lies…more lies…more cheating.

The Clintons have more dignity in their pinky fingers than obama and his thugs have in totality. Hillary has a great exit strategy as well as a stay in jail strategy. She is doing her job. He can’t fault her for that because she is doing it better than anyone else in his cabinet. Bill is campaigning for the dims as well as running his foundation and helping Haiti. The guy has got to sleep sometime.

If obama and his owners continue down this path he will incite (and most likely deliberately) another race war to end all race wars. He will not go down gracefully.

It just gets deeper and deeper, and we have admin to filter through the layers for us. Thank you for spoiling us rotten!
Regarding Hildebrand’s ridiculous claim that the matter of fraud is just now surfacing, try this:
I think Murphy’s poignant tribute to her Dad would go a long way toward convincing most that there was plenty of protest early on. From her recent post ‘An Open Thread, with Thanks’:
On the 12-hour drive home from Washington DC on June 2, 2008 he and I took turns driving. While I was driving I was mulling over what had happened to Hillary at the Wardman Park Marriott and vowing to do all that I could, to be a DIFFERENT person, when I got home. I never would have taken that trip down to DC without my father’s encouragement and support. I never would have started Puma PAC without him.
snip
It was his idea to drive down to DC for the RBC meeting on May 30. It was me, him, my 3 girls and my niece — all the women of the family. We drove the MVOD like a bat out of hell. I had a pass into the meetings and he took the kids to the zoo and checked in on everything via the tv’s in the hotel lobby. He was devastated when they took away Hillary’s delegates and sealed the deal for obama.
It was on the ride home from DC with him that I decided my life should be more meaningful and that we needed to do something about what happened to Hillary– and that I would start Puma PAC.

US ‘preferred’ compassionate release of Lockerbie bomber, says Alex Salmond
The US Government told Scottish officials that the Lockerbie bomber’s release on compassionate grounds was ”far preferable” to his transfer back to a Libyan jail, it was revealed today.

The SNP called for the US Government to give its full co-operation to the Senate inquiry and to
release the documents and any information over American discussions with Libya in relation to Abdelbasset Mohmed Al Megrahi.

Responding to revelations in todays newspapers of the content of US correspondence with the Scottish Government, reports of US negotiations over the Lockerbie bomber and campaign donations to the US senators involved in the inquiry from BP organizations SNP MSP Christine Grahame repeated her call for the US Government to allow the release of documents and for the Senate investigation to call the right witnesses:

“As a newspaper appears to have obtained this document it is ridiculous that the public and the US Senate Committee are unable to see it.

“At the very least the US Government must release its correspondence with the Scottish Government to its own Senate committee and lift the embargo on Scottish Government publication. Senator Menendez has asked for this document and the Obama administration must give permission for it to be
released. The families of victims on both sides of the Atlantic deserve to know the full position of the US Government on this issue.

“If this senate inquiry is to be taken seriously it must ask the right
questions of the right people and along with revisiting its failure to
formally invite Tony Blair and his former adviser, now UK ambassador to the US Sir Nigel Sheinwald, they should ask the US government to set out what discussions it had with Libya over Mr Megrahi and if US officials were in contact or even accompanied UK officials in discussions around the deal in the desert.”

Commenting on the revelations of significant campaign donations by BP to US Senators and senior Democrats including President Obama and Hilary Clinton and by US oil companies drilling in and around Libya SNP MSP Michael Matheson said this exposed the pure politicking around what should be an incredibly serious issue.

Commenting on the revelations Mr Matheson said

“It’s astonishing that after all the rhetoric and talk of BP funds as
‘blood money’ that those Senators attacking BP have benefited from their donations. It exposes some of the sheer political opportunism currently being played out over the tragic events at Lockerbie and in the Gulf.

“It is utterly hypocritical of these senators, when Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond have been absolutely clear no discussions or lobbying of the Scottish Government by BP took place, to raise ill founded accusations when they are the ones actually accepting donations from the same company.

Notes:
1. Research by the US based Centre for Responsive Politics shows that in
the cycle ending 2010 two of the Senators – Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles
Schumer – took $750 and $250 from BP respectively, while Senator Menendez
who is to chair the inquiry on Thursday received a $2000 donation.

Other senior US political figures including President Obama and Secretary
of State Hilary Clinton have also taken significant campaign donations
from BP, with Mr Obama receiving 71,000 and Ms Clinton receiving $6000 and
the Democrats accepting over $160,000 in campaign donations from US oil
companies active in Libya.

Just returned from the supermarket. The Tabloids at the check-out are going wild. The Globe has a huge spread on the front page:

OBAMA BORN IN AFRICA

Thanks admin for posting the Brazile catastrophe. She is a piece of work. Back to reading your timely update on the coming tsunami from the BO Camp. I can’t wait- We’ve been cabin bound for so long; we’re all fighting fit!
___________________________

Basil, I could trade barbs with you all day long but I refuse to do so. I could go into name calling mode as you have… But that is not what this site is for. This site is for sharing information and keeping a pulse on the opposition to get Hillary elected.

The SNP called for the US Government to give its full co-operation to the Senate inquiry and to
release the documents and any information over American discussions with Libya in relation to Abdelbasset Mohmed Al Megrahi.

———————————

I must have been sleeping while the original trial took place in 1991……but reading the details now is quite shcoking about the original trial and the way it was conducted….

Mrs. Smith,
Thanks for the update on the latest issue of Globe…he ass is in trouble…daily more crap…pretty soon he’ll have to climb uphill to take the final “Nixon exit” to get out of the WH. I am really NOT a CROOK…LOL!

Turndown, Here in Texas its devastating when some asshole cuts off our oil…surely you remember the gas lines of the seventies. We filled up according to our license plates numbers. We use alot more gas in Texas than most states…its so big. Its a 16 mile trip for me to go to the grocery store. Of coarse the price would skyrocket, and where would that leave all these unemployed people.

Its all nice if you have a subway or train, but its not like that in all of America. I actually thought this numbskull would have starting building these things so we could ALL get off oil, not just those who live in small, populas states. He instead chose to make sure George Soros and the like have enough money to cover the downturn in the economy.

“If you hear the dogs, keep going.If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they’re shouting after you, keep going.

Don’t ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

Even in the darkest of moments, ordinary Americans have found the faith to keep going.”

The Obama thugs can play their masquerade on the Titanic all they want. We won’t fall for their games and cheap diversions. Hillary supporters will continue to investigate. Hillary supporters will continue to speak out. Hillary supporters will continue to prepare. Then we’ll make our move – when we are ready to do so.

We’ll “keep going” until Obama is going… going… gone.

———–
I can’t hear this cry to fight on by Hillary enough.

I have a black t-shirt with this written on it, (‘If you hear the dogs…’) that was made and given to me by a wonderful PUMA.

I wear it with deep pride as often as I can to work because it defines what we have been though with Hillary, what we continue to do on a daily basis, and by God, until we get our Hillary in the White House where she belongs.

While I certainly hope that the new caucus fraud expose film leads to changing some minds about what happened in 2008, I still don’t understand why people don’t just ask the DNC the more obvious question: Why did the DNC allow the Fraud to declare himself the winner on June 3, 2008, when he only had 1766 pledged delegates, well short of the required number according to the Rules. It’s the most basic question, one that can’t be truthfully answered without admitting fraud, but one that still never gets asked. Obama didn’t win on June 3; it should have gone to the convention. Wouldn’t that be a better start to making the case?

Mike
Good point, but there was a ‘vote’ on the convention floor after delegates were threatened by being chased down the hallways of the hotels in Denver, told they had to switch their votes from Hillary to Obama to ‘unify’, and anyone that didn’t wouldn’t get support from the DNC in their next re-election.
Nasty screwed over the Calif delegates by not letting them know the vote on the floor would be moved up earlier so they didn’t have time to get to Denver, and the DNC refusing to give delegates contact info of other delegates in other states so they could communicate on the corruption in Denver.

Why don’t Hillary delegates finally do what is right and step forward to tell the truth?????????

First, this is if not the best, one of the best articles that I have read in this blog. The truth shines brightly here. I have yet to read anything that would wreak of falsehood.

Second, however disappointed I am in Hillary for supporting Obama, I need to remember about what transpired during the Democratic nomination, and how things were stacked against Hillary. My disappointment comes from my personal fantasy of how I would have responded, and when I saw Hillary responding different than what I believe I would have done in the same situation, it drew some negativity from me toward Hillary. Articles like this one here allow me to readjust those feelings, and to cut Hillary some deserved slack.

Third, Steve Hildebrand is one lying SOB… a fat, gay, evil frucker. I note “gay” because my gaydar says so, and it is my opinion that his sexuality has affected his mental condition probably due to interactions and experiences from earlier in his life which resulted in his becoming a nasty queen. He has the same psychological condition as Obama; one of delusion brought on by self loathing as a response to perceived slights experienced during their lives. They now act out as a means of responding to their earlier hurts. Mental cases do not belong in government, nor in any role of promoting someone else for a government position. They are the reason for the extreme negativity introduced into the political process as they act out during their involvment.

Fourth, the DNC is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt, and then some. The Democrats will never see a vote from me again until that cesspool is drained.

Fifth, I can’t wait until these faux Democrats have to answer for their misdeeds, every stinking one of these charlatans.

US oil industry’s Libyan presence
ExxonMobil returned to Libya in 2005 after a 25-year absence and last year its affiliate ExxonMobil Libya started drilling the country’s first deepwater exploration well.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) was the first American company to resume oil operations in Libya when U.S. sanctions ended in 2005. In 2008 Oxy reached a 30-year agreement with Libya to redevelop and explore in the country’s most prolific oil producing area, the Sirte Basin. It will invest $5bn in the project over the next five years.

ChevronTexaco Corp’s successful bid on one onshore block in Libya’s first exploration license round marked its return to the African country after an absence of 28 years.

The company’s 2009 annual report showed that its oil and gas holdings in Libya is 2.7mn acres, its largest holdings in Africa after Nigeria. Energy services company Halliburton has worked with Shell in Libya to develop a testing tool that can be operated at high pressure and high temperature wells.

Barack Obama’s presidency is illegal! That’s what political insiders are saying after a shocking birth certificate from a hospital in Kenya reveals America’s Commander-in-Chief was born in Africa! GLOBE has all the explosive details you can’t afford to miss!

turndownobama can fantasize about her electric car (from a past post), but she needs to realize that the electricity used to run the car is more than likely created from either coal, OIL, or for many environmentalist, the dreaded nuclear energy. Writing about the failure and fall of the oil industry is shortsighted as there is no viable alternative fuel that most Americans could afford to use for their vehicles at this time, nor is there an industry that could absorb all of the workers who would become unemployed if the oil industry were to disappear in the near term.

I hope that some day alternative fuels, or alternative means of transportation are developed so that America may continue to prosper in the future. There is no denying that fossil fuels have enabled the greatness of our country.

LONDON: The US held secret “deal in the desert” talks with Libya in 2003 to free Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, just two years into his life sentence, a media report said.

In fact, one of America’s most senior spies tried to broker a “trade for terrorist” swap with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi six years before the release of the Lockerbie bomber by Scotland in 2009, the Daily Express reported.

Stephen Kappes, a former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was the driving force behind the negotiations. He had held secret meetings with the Libyan leader in 2003, accompanied by MI6 agent Sir Mark Allen.

Al-Megrahi, convicted in 1988 for the bombing of the Pan Am flight, which killed 270 people, was freed last August after Scotland allowed the “ill” bomber to return to Libya, amid claims that it paved the way for lucrative oil deals for UK.

It’s said that officials of oil giant BP lobbied UK government officials to release al-Megrahi so that it could secure an oil project with Libya.

The US senate’s foreign relations committee has called for a probe into whether BP had actually lobbied the UK to try to secure al-Megrahi’s release. But, the new revelation that the US spies also initiated secret talks with Libya in 2003 will now fuel pressure on the Senate to widen its current inquiry.

mp, So its sounds like Bush/Cheney initiated and Obama got it done for them.

nobama, Yes Hildebrand is gay according to widipedia. I have to say your opinion on how his disposition is and how he got like that was informative and I agree. I think there are lots of folks like that in Obama’s administration, just mean, right down to the bone.

democrat 1, I hope your right and this takes off like Edwards crap did, but I won’t hold my breath because alot of people will lose their career’s when this comes out. Obama has them all blackmailed!

I’m with you all the way on that. But my point is that once the Fraud declared himself the winner on June 3, that automatically put him and his people in charge of the convention. This allowed the convention fraud to follow.

While the people that read this blog all understand what happened in the primaries, and know that there was fraud all over the place in the caucuses, primaries, convention, RBC meeting, etc., it’s very difficult to prove caucus fraud to those who trust the media and don’t have the time to follow this issue into the weeds. However, it seems to me that asking the simple question of why the Fraud was allowed by the DNC to declare victory on June 3 when he was 350 votes short of the required number of pledged delegates is something that everyone can understand and no one can answer (as well as the question of why he was given 29-1/2 delegates in Michigan when he wasn’t on the ballot). It seems to me that emphasizing that line of questioning might end up changing the minds of some of the doubters, which I think is what we’re trying to achieve.

“He was given 29 1/2 delegates from Michigan ‘cos that race baiter John Conyers and the AAs in Detroit played the race card……”

No argument about that. But wouldn’t it be more effective in converting a doubter to say that awarding 29-1/2 delegates to someone who’s not on the ballot violates the DNC Rules? Even if we know the race card issue is true, it can be debated; however; the clear, easily-proven violation of the Rules cannot.

“(as well as the question of why he was given 29-1/2 delegates in Michigan when he wasn’t on the ballot).”

FYI- When Biden removed his name from the MI ballot, Obama threatened to sue if his name wasn’t removed from the MI ballot post haste!

I believe your theory regarding the starting point is dead on.
______________________________

Breitbart says:

“I think that, quite frankly, Hillary Clinton, if she were in charge, would actually be a hell of a lot tougher than Barack Obama is. And perhaps that’s what this entire article in The Washington Post is about, is that she’s been standing off to the side and allowing for these people to hang themselves with their inept behavior.”
________________________________

Absolutely! Hillary has played a fine game of chess with these Johnnie come lately yahoos in Obama’s inner circle. The first sign of cracks in the wall came when we heard about the soon to be exodus of Rham Emanual to a position (mayor?) in Chicago. Rice and Power are endemic to acadamia where they can flaunt their status to underclassman as the role models for classroom achievement.

Other than Axelrod, who really should think about taking a refresher in a Dale Carnegie course, who else is left? Who have I forgotten? I’m not counting the sleeveless one because she is practically invisible to the country no matter how they try promoting her. Of course sometimes there is the unexpected pic of the latern jawed skowler. I clip those out and catalog them for future scary Halloween ideas.
______________________________

Admin:

“Eventually we will have a list of all the 2×4 Schumers and the secret supporters and the back-stabbers and those who worked with Ted Kennedy/Daschle/Pelosi/Kerry, in secret, with the JournoListers, to thwart the will of the Democratic rank and file voter. Then we’ll all make our move. ”
_______________________________

Pinch me, admin- Did you say: “Then we’ll all make our move”? I can’t believe I’m hearing those words… wa-hoo!

nomobama
Third, Steve Hildebrand is one lying SOB… a fat, gay, evil frucker. I note “gay” because my gaydar says so, and it is my opinion that his sexuality has affected his mental condition probably due to interactions and experiences from earlier in his life which resulted in his becoming a nasty queen. He has the same psychological condition as Obama; one of delusion brought on by self loathing as a response to perceived slights experienced during their lives. They now act out as a means of responding to their earlier hurts. Mental cases do not belong in government, nor in any role of promoting someone else for a government position.
————————–
OMG, nomobama. I can’t believe you just said that some bad event in his past made him gay????? And “self-loathing as a response to perceived slights”??? Most gays do not loathe themselves at all, and those that do, do not do it because of some “slight” – it would be caused by society’s ongoing nasty attitudes – which you seem to be exhibiting here.

I’m just in shock that you would display such attitudes here. There is nothing wrong with someone who is gay. That is such an antiquated and hateful belief.

Lots of hints in that one. Thanks for posting it.
____________________

Yes, Hillary is forcing Obama into a corner. Forcing him to do something. Of course he won’t like her telling him what to do. He’ll want to remind her- That he will respond to whomever he wants, whenever he wants with or without her approval. And being an insecure individual unsure of his options, he may just fire her like he did General McChrystal. If Rice has put a bug in his ear saying she can handle N. Korea… (cough) and she is chomping at the bit. He will think long and hard if he should call Clinton’s bluff.. and then what? Kiss her or Fire her? Plus, who is he going to call at 3 am in the morning if Hillary goes?

Oh, boy- this is getting more and more like a soap opera as the days go by.

lorac, take a breather. I am gay, and yes there are many injured souls in the gay community with HUGE chips on their shoulders. And I wouldn’t be too certain that many of the “out and proud” members are not some of the most damaged of the group.

Oh, reread the comment. I didn’t say anything of the sort with regards to some event in his past “making him gay”. I wrote that his past made him nasty. He was born gay which is something that he can’t change.

nomobama – I suspect you are projecting your own self onto this guy on TV. I don’t like how he lied, but to attribute it to his gayness?

I’m not talking about “out and proud” people, if you mean people whose whole life seems to be about their sexuality. I’m talking about gay people who live regular lives.

But maybe we’re coming at it from two different perspectives. It sounds like your experience is with the male community. I’m more aware of the female community. Perhaps it’s different, then. People I know live lives like anyone else, and their sexuality is just one part of who they are – it’s not an issue. They’re not ashamed, but neither do they make it the big issue of their lives. Maybe that’s different than the “out and proud” people you’re talking about.

Before I continue with this, are you a lesbian? I ask only to have a better understanding of your comments.

By the way, I also didn’t write anything about “being ashamed”. Although my comment was not nice with regards to Steven H., his behavior came from somewhere. He helped design Obama’s election strategy, a strategy of nastiness, and lies. And when you consider that Obama is NOT gay friendly, Steven should be ashamed of himself.

“The blogger wrote that he got a tip from a San Diego, Calif., Minuteman named Jeff Schwilk, who said that the Zetas, former enforcers of the Gulf Cartel, had crossed into the United States and taken over two ranches off Mines Road, about 10 miles northwest of Interstate 35.”

Susan Rice taking over Hillary’s position now that freaking scary…surely the republicans will take Obama down before they hand over that position to Susan Rice. Its dangerous, they people really think these dictators will talk, what a joke. Susan RIce wouldn’t necessarily be scary with a very strong Potus, but this guy is afraid of his own shadow and the republicans know it.

I still believe the republicans have the goods on Obama. They are like cats playing with their mouse…they play with it and then kill it unmercifully when they get tired of the game. LOL!

The reporter for The Examiner said there is a media blackout for news of the drug cartel’s takeover of the two Ranches in Laredo. If I lived in TX, I would call the reporter penning the story for verification.

I have heard lots of positive press from Fox about Hillary in the last few days. John Bolton is even somewhat nice…for the exception of Hannity….the only thing I like about Hannity is he never gives Obama a break…he does give a few to Hillary from time to time.

Of course we need a steady supply of oil (from safe sources such as ANWR) while switching to clean energy sources. Palin and Alaska are ahead of us. They’ve already got 25% of their power from clean sources, and are aiming for 50% by 2025.

It would be magical thinking to suggest that electric cars can only run on electricity made from oil. ‘-) In fact electricity is all the same regardless of its source: wind, solar, tide, oil, whatever.

It sounds like Obama does not want to take that 3 am call. So Hillary is the one defending the country. I have been writing a paper which lays out the rationale for a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Here are the first four parts. But the best evidence is what we are witnessing now in real time.
——————————————————————————————————————–
THE CASE FOR HILLARY IN 2012

I. INTRODUCTION

Eighteen months have elapsed since Barack bungled the inaugural oath in front of Chief Justice Roberts. During that brief period of time, he has managed to squander the public support he once enjoyed. He has energized Republicans, alienated Independents and disillusioned Democrats. This can scarcely be called a winning strategy. On the contrary, it strongly suggests that if Barack runs in 2012, then he and his party will be crushed as we saw with Jimmy Carter in 1980. In that case, it is likely that former Speaker Newt Gingrich will become our 45th President. And while that may be welcome news in certain quarters, among Democrats it is the imprimatur of failure and the harbinger of wilderness years to come. On the odds that will happen– unless party leaders confront the problem and consent to do their duty. Here are five (5) compelling reasons to support Hillary in 2012:

II. HILLARY IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY

I make no secret of my support for Hillary, so it is hardly surprising that many people I know from all parts of the political spectrum have come forward and told me after the fact that they wish Hillary was president. The reasons for this are self evident. Obama has failed to solve the problems facing this country, too often he has made them worse and most people understand that they will be the ones who pay the price for his failure. They reject his agenda and deplore his incompetence. They feel very differently about Hillary. They see the agenda she laid out in the primary was to save the middle class. And they know for a fact that she is competent–her record on that score speaks for itself. Simply put, Hillary is an asset and Barack is a liability. Whatever else people may think about the candidates, that much is clear. Wilder and Jesse Jackson III may burn Denver in protest as they threatened, but it will not change this fundamental reality.
Hillary’s leadership was manifest in her Senate days when she passed more legislation than any freshman senator in history. And now, as Secretary of State, her leadership skill is again on display. Against all odds, she has restored the morale of a lumbering and dispirited government agency, rehabilitated our reputation in the world, and established the new concept of smart power which consolidates our leverage to create more favorable foreign policy outcomes. World leaders are connoisseurs of power. They see Obama for what he is, namely a figurehead who traverses the world with a teleprompter, makes speeches from the balcony and loves to sign his name on treaties in front of the camera. Not for nothing did the French President accuse Barack of living in a virtual world. Their perception of Hillary is entirely different. They see her as a serious player who unfailingly represents American interests, but also understands their problems, and looks for solutions that promote progress and stability.

When it comes to leadership, the difference between Hillary and Obama is stark. Hillary would never stay on vacation after the Detroit bomber was aborted. But Barack did. Hillary would never extend Miranda rights to confessed terrorists. But Barack did. Hillary would never allow the chain of command deteriorate to the point that the general in charge of a foreign war would open up to a corrupt journalist. But Barack did. Hillary would never protect the interests of BP over the survival of an eco-system, and a local economy by ignoring the problem. But Barack did. Hillary would never let her attorney general condone voter intimidation due to the ethnicity of the perpetrators. But Barack Hussein Obama did. None of this is surprising given his long checkered history of radical associations, his Rezko relationships, and his total lack of executive experience.

III. HILLARY IS BEST FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

The Democratic Party under Barack Hussein Obama is in real trouble. It has become the negation of what it once was. Once upon a time, it was a patriotic party which was not ashamed to rally round the flag, whereas today under Barack Obama it is apologetic for and contemptuous of the American tradition. Once it was the party of working class Americans, whereas now it is the party of elites, bamboozlers and desperate naïve people. Once it was the party of Social Security, Medicare and safety nets, whereas now its message to the American People is you are on their own. And, once it was the party of equal opportunity whereas now it is the party of reverse discrimination, racial spoils and open borders—Jim Webb’s comments to the contrary notwithstanding. In sum, the Democratic Party under Obama has become the enemy of the American People.
Many loyal Americans call themselves Democrats. They are well aware of this transformation, and how negatively it is viewed by their constituents. They know Hillary is popular and many of them wish she were President. But they are reluctant to go further, since they do not wish to be seen as disloyal to the Party, or targeted by Obama’s internet hit squads. But if Hillary decides to run, or is drafted, then those concerns would be mitigated. And, her candidacy would be widely supported. How different it would be from 2008 when the Kennedy cabal accused her of dividing the party and sabotaging its election prospects because she elected to fight on until each state had its chance to vote. If the party is wiped out in November, and she decides to run, then she will be seen as the only Democratic leader who can save the party, unite what is left of it, and win in 2012.

IV. HILLARY IS BEST FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

At the beginning of Obama’s imperious reign, party candidates felt his knife blade at their throats if they dared to oppose him. And when they acquired the 60th Senate vote, they were able to steam roll the other party. It was a classic case of le bon temps roué. They began to believe all the hype that the White House and Big Media could manufacture. But when they goose stepped into their districts to give constituents the “good news” about Obamacare, like death panels and individual mandates, they were taken aback by the public reaction, and the lack of respect for their exalted office. Whereupon, the Administration dispatched SEIU thugs who physically assaulted American citizens, and reassured wavering Congressional representatives that these were not real grass roots objections, and unlike 1994, this time “we have Barack!”
That sophistry was pressure tested in a series of elections that followed. Nervous officials watched hopefully as Obama went into those districts, preached the gospel, and in each case the candidates he supported were soundly defeated at the polls, i.e. Deeds in Virginia, Corzine in New Jersey, Coakley in Massachusetts, and Specter in Pennsylvania, down they went in flames. The country was moving ahead of its politicians as fresh evidence was presented that Obama was coddling terrorists, tanking our economy, destroying jobs, wrecking our environment, rewarding illegal conduct and re-enacting the Tragedy of the Commons. The polls began to reflect these new perceptions of him, and his party, as the economy slipped back into a recession. Meanwhile, pollsters gave high marks to Hillary.
Looking ahead to November, Democratic congressional candidates will be reminded of the prophetic words of Dr Johnson: “Nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged”, i.e. Hanged for betraying constituents, hanged for rolling over to big business, and hanged again for failing to read the bills they passed. Instead of waiting for the neck tie party to begin, many incumbents wisely decided to retire. Others elected to stay in the game, either because they are in safe districts, or because they felt they could weather the storm. But those who reside in swing districts want no part of Messiah Obama. They know his endorsement is the kiss of death. So they keep him as far away from their district as possible, unless they can persuade him to campaign for their opponent.

They feel quite differently about President Clinton. At this point, polls show that he is far more popular than Obama. And unlike Obama, the candidates Bill endorsed have gone on to win. In short, Bill has coattails whereas Barack has none, except in African American districts. Therefore, when Bill stepped to the plate to help candidates who had supported Hillary, they breathed a collective sigh of relief. This has allowed Bill to collect political chits from those officials, in the event that Hillary decides to run again in 2012.

V. HILLARY IS BEST FOR BUSINESS

When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, he inherited a recession. Rather than whining about it, or blaming his predecessor he went to work on it. He pursued fiscal discipline, market based strategies and safety nets. As a result, business activity flourished: economic growth averaged 4%; twenty-five million new jobs were created; median family income rose by $6000; inflation fell to its lowest level in thirty years; unemployment was under 5% for 40 consecutive months; and home ownership rose to record levels. In sum, the nation produced more wealth than ever before and it trickled down from Wall Street to Main Street. Under Bill and Hillary, all boats rose with the tide.
When Barack Obama took office in 2008, he too inherited a recession, plus a collapse of the stock market. From the very beginning, he whimpered and whined about it, blamed his predecessor and adopted a set of policies which made things much worse. These included health care reform, financial reform, and the stimulus slush fund which placed onerous new burdens on businesses as well as individuals. At the beginning of Barack’s tenure, the unemployment rate was 8% whereas today it is hovering between 9.5 and 10%. The real unemployment rate is more than twice that number. Sadly, nearly three million jobs have been lost since he took office.

Ironically, the Fortune 500 companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion, but they are unwilling to invest it in new plants, equipment and employees in America. Why? Because they do not trust Barack, they believe he is anti-business to the core, and they are not devotees of the Nancy Pelosi School of Governance which holds that you must first pass the omnibus bill before you are allowed to know what is in it. They deplore taxes, regulations and uncertainty and Barack has given them those in spades. They worry that no one around him understands business. Small business is the job creation engine of the economy. They are struggling for survival. Hence, they want every piece of legislation passed by Congress and the Obama Administration since January 2008 repealed if it adds cost to their razor thin margins.

The Democratic Party is in a serious quandary here. On the one hand, they know they have a problem. If they cannot induce business to trust them then business will be unwilling to put capital at risk, in which case there will be no new jobs, in which case there will be high unemployment, in which case there will be insufficient tax revenues to pay for government, in which case government services must be curtailed, in which case voters will revolt against Democrats. It is bad enough that Barack should be perceived as anti-business. But it is even worse that the people he has brought to Washington are academics rather than businessmen, and in some cases ideologues as opposed to responsible regulators. Recently, the Administration asked the Chamber of Commerce to particularize their objections to its policies and practices. They were shocked and dismayed when the Chamber came back with a 52 page fine print tome.

If Hillary were President, we would not have this problem. In this fragile economic environment, her first priority would be the same as it was in 1992, namely fiscal discipline. She would focus on jobs now and health care later. And, as she said in Seattle, she would turn to business leaders to help solve the problems of this country, rather than viewing them as cash cows, or test tubes for social engineering projects like Barack does. To be clear, the fundamental issue here is trust, and it cannot exist where the president is perceived as “anti business to the core” by the very business people who voted for him, as well as others. In order to revive a faltering economy, we must restore the trust of business leaders at large, and the only way to do that is for the Democratic Party to make a change at the top. Hillary is the mutually prominent alternative, and the solution to the problem.

Another excerpt from my paper which may interest you:
—————————————————-
The future is always uncertain. In this case, the only thing we can say with confidence is if there is to be a day of reckoning for the American People then we want Hillary not Barack. Why? Because experience has shown that when push comes to shove Barack will sell out the American People, whereas Hillary will not. Barack has done this time and again over the course of his career, first as an Illinois State Senator i.e. Rezko, etc., later as a US Senator i.e. Excelon, etc. and now as President, i.e. Goldman Sachs, Big Pharma, etc. By contrast, Hillary has stood by her constituents, in word and deed, always.

I can think of no better example of this than a high dollar fundraiser for Hillary in Seattle in November 2007. The audience was comprised of people like Bill Gates Sr., Howard Schultz inter alia. A similar high dollar fundraiser was held for Barack in San Francisco. What Barack and Hillary said to those audiences at that time speaks volumes about who they really are. Barack sought to ingratiate himself to those plutocrats by disparaging ordinary Americans who live in small towns as bitter and clinging to guns and religion. By contrast, Hillary stood up for ordinary people and said this: “When I look at the problems facing this country, I do not worry about the people in this room. I worry about the rest of America and what will become of them.” She promised to call upon the best minds in the business world to help save our country. And what did Barack do? He called on left wing radicals and denizens of the Chicago to help him share the spoils and “rule” the country as Coward Dean so aptly put it.

In their ongoing effort to control “the game” and protect the Golden Calf, the cognoscenti have told us a new lie. According to their latest whopper, Hillary will not run against Obama because this would divide the party, and any attempt to do that would precipitate an ugly sequel to 2008. There is one flaw in their flawless logic and you will be glad to know it is fatal. Simply put, we are in a different epoch. The zeitgeist of 2008 was Bush fatigue vs. “Messiah Obama” who promised a miracle. By contrast, the zeitgeist of 2010 is A God That Failed, a jobless recovery and the loss of country and party as we know them. And, the zeitgeist of the 2012 election will be the staggering Congressional losses in 2010, a financial day of reckoning in 2011, and “Pariah Obama”. Suffice it to say, when the ground on which we stand is moving in directions no one can control, you cannot assume as the cognoscenti do that past is prologue. All bets are off.

The willful blindness of 2008 is history. Today, more people than ever see Obama for who he is, and what he is doing to the country. Furthermore, we now know who his co-conspirators are in the Party and in the Media, thanks to the fine work of the FOX network, the book Game Change, and the recent revelations which appeared in The Daily Caller. Lastly, in the short expanse of one month, Barack has had his Katrina moment with the Gulf and thereafter his Macaca moment with his protection of the Black Panther party. What will happen in the future to accelerate his falling star remains to be seen. But this much is obvious: he is over his head and anything can happen.

Thanks lorac. I think these constituencies will swing her way. Obama is proving to be a disaster for all concerned. When you have his Lord Protector Jeffrey Immelt of GE, who used his former media subsidiaries NBC and MSNBC to grease the skids for Obama and who was formerly on his council of economic advisors (along with the ceo catepillar) saying he is anti business to the core, then a see change is at hand. Small business never liked him but big business saw him as their cat spaw to pull thei chestnuts out of the fire. The other side of the economy is finance, and there his candle still burns brightly for reasons whe have discussed at length on prior occasions. They want the US taxpayers to be their piggy bank for the next financial meltdown and the one after that and the one after that. This is why some of us were pushing for Glass Steagal. As Russ Feingold noted this financial reform bill was written by Barack’s banking friends and it will not prevent another disaster, rein in hedge funds or cure the priblem of too big to fail.

Over the last two years I have monitored my conversations with life long friends. When waffles got the nom I bit my tongue as per protocol when having dinner with friends. I graciously endured the he won deal with it bs. But whoa in the past week I have rec’d borderline hate mail from friends concerning the bambi meltdown. I haven’t uttered a word. Unknown to me I have singularly caused what-its-face to be examined with a critical eye. Funny on one hand but these are professional 40 plus individuals who are really losing it.
My favorite is when they tell me we need to unite and up until last week they refused to believe there was any fraud during the primaries/caucusaes(sp?). Tell me Hillary got over it so should I. Wierd these very smart successful people don’t get that while I am a huge HRC supporter my vote my voice is what I am screaming about. Strange I respect HRC and think she would have been the best president ever but I am not a fan.

Whenever race is mentioned, it hurts Barack Obama’s presidency. The very basis of his presidency is that he is the post racial president. Now he finds himself knee-deep into racial politics.

There are two common denominators to this equation: race and weakness. Any involvement in racial politics has to hurt Obama at his core. It goes to his fundamental selling point: That he is post racial. By dealing with race repeatedly, he is vulnerable just as Bill Clinton was when he had always to deal with sexual scandal. It is not his strength but can ultimately destroy his credibility.

And then there is weakness. By caving in first to the right and then to the left, Obama acts and looks indecisive and weak. He comes across as out of control and projects the same image of incapacity and chaos that he so amply demonstrated when the oil was gushing in the Gulf. He reminds one of the opening days of the Clinton Administration when it tied itself in knots over the issue of gays in the military. It looks like amateur hour at the White House.

Obama has two conflicting goals: He wants to expand his base among whites and heighten enthusiasm of blacks. Good goals, both. But if he uses racial issues to accomplish either objective — as he appears to do in the Sherrod controversy — he alienates one group in order to win the other. Not a good strategy.

It must never be forgotten that the thugs started this shit.
Three years ago I would spend some time helping people learn to read. Less than 20 hours a week but more than 10. I dealt with adults. I was called racist and I quit.
Never did I use my time spent as a deduction. It was a choice I made. I had a knack for it. To me someone who couldn’t read was like the time’s wednesday or thursday crossword puzzle. I just had to figure out how they were looking at something for it to make sense. Once I got it I could guide them.
Over 500 hours a year no pay. Calls throughout the day. Cups of coffee. Countless hours working with departments to get some aid. Testifying in court as to a human beings worth. Never a dime came my way
I read about little fuk putzes on the journolist who think they were doing a good thing.

I would love to ask Ezra if he thinks he did the good thing. I cannot tell you how many welfare/aid forms I have filled out in the last ten years. Some guy I was teaching to read tells his friend that he got someone who can help. End up in the Wendy’s next to the welfare office filling out form after form.

Hey I did it. It was my choice. Never asked for a dime. But when they called me racist for supporting HRC.
I was pissed. I do not do any of it anymore.

Seems Barack is a day late on healthcare too:
July 24, 2010
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care
By SARAH LYALL
LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate. Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948. Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers. The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.” The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment. The plan, with many elements that need legislative approval to be enacted, applies only to England; other parts of Britain have separate systems. snip
h t t p://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1280138624-ZtJv8ANaPPGsWQkH5ZEwAg

Reiterating first line of text: Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux…
And so it may well be for us as Congress is already is considering a major addition: the public option.

If you want to find a harsh crowd for an American official, send him — or her — to Pakistan. That’s why reviews of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s stop in Islamabad during her latest dizzying tour of international trouble spots should make us take notice. “Drum roll for Hillary,” wrote Rizwan Ghani in the Pakistan Observer, “because she has hit a home run.”

Hillary, as she is known around the globe, does not earn accolades just for her cheerful smile. She is tough as nails. In fact, she’s much tougher than her boss, President Barack Obama. And her mastery of complicated issues can leave observers’ jaws dangling from their hinges. The Pakistani daily Dawn spoke of her “Iron fist in a velvet glove,” as it described her taking on Pakistani officials over tense problems, including Afghanistan, the Taliban, China-Pakistan nuclear cooperation, Indo-Pakistani water disputes, and so on.

And that was just one stop on the trip. In South Korea she sent one of the strongest messages this administration has issued to Pyongyang, and then walked right up to the edge of the DMZ, within inches of nervous North Korean soldiers. On Afghanistan, no U.S. official can deal more openly and effectively with President Hamid Karzai. And speaking of Afghanistan, remember that Rolling Stone article that got Gen. Stanley McChrystal fired? The piece showed his aides tearing down just about every administration official, adding, “Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal’s inner circle.”

In fact, Hillary Clinton, who was supposed to ignite the flames of conservatives’ hatred, is becoming more popular every day across the political spectrum. Her hawkish foreign policy views gain her support on the right, and her well known views on domestic policy keep the home fires burning on the left. The two fields intersect in one of the areas where she displays the greatest passion, her signature issue on foreign policy: the need to empower women in poor countries in order to transform the world.

Nobody has advanced the vision and worked more successfully to put it into practice. Since electrifying her audience in Beijing in 1995 declaring that “it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights,” her run for the presidency and her time as America’s top diplomat has helped girls everywhere aim higher and forced oppressors of women to deal with a woman if they want to speak with America. Her town hall meetings around the world promote America’s values and human rights.

Clinton, whose approval ratings easily surpass those of the president and the vice-president, has acted as something of a bad cop to Obama’s good cop. It’s impossible to know how much of what she says is directed by the White House and how much is her personal message. She was always much more hawkish than Obama on Iran’s nuclear program, for example, showing skepticism that his `outstretched hand’ would nudge Tehran to change course. Her doubts proved correct, and Obama is now pushing the line she advocated two years ago. On Israel, she spoke harshly to the Netanyahu administration, surprising Israelis who had learned to trust her over the years. But now the White House is sounding more like Hillary did in the old days.

Not long ago, an interviewer asked if she would serve eight years as secretary of state. “No,” she said, “I really can’t.” The globe-trotting job is absolutely exhausting. And when the obligatory question comes, would she run for president again? The obligatory answer is always No.

At 62, Clinton is not too old for another run, especially if it comes in just two years. Republicans have been promoting the idea. After all, a Democratic challenge to Obama could help secure a Republican victory in 2012. In a Wall Street Journal column, former governor Pete du Pont, a Republican, listed Obama’s troubles, suggesting Hillary could prove the Democrats’ savior, if not at the top of the ticket, perhaps as Obama’s vice-presidential running mate. (No comment from Biden on that.)

Hillary was too busy planning Chelsea’s wedding and strategizing against dictators to answer the suggestion. She would not run against an incumbent Democrat. But it’s too early to know how 2012 will look. If unemployment does not improve; if Obama’s ratings continue to slide; if Obama decides not to run — it’s a lot of ifs. But remember, Hillary Clinton is still hitting home runs. And there’s always 2016.

You can tell by the hatchet job below that the bots running scared. Their knives are coming out…and this is just the beginning.

Clintonites Undermine Obama for Hillary 2012 Challenge

by Rowan Scarborough
07/26/2010

For pundits looking for signs that Hillary Clinton is thinking—just thinking—of perhaps challenging President Obama in 2012, there are suddenly plenty of tea leaves to be read.

Former aides to Bill Clinton are popping up in news stories criticizing the President’s performance and making dour predictions about the Democratic Party.

Why else are Clinton loyalists joining the fray other than to soften up Obama for a Hillary left-cross come, say, the summer of 2011, when she cites high unemployment and a country in malaise in deciding to run for President again?

The biggest jolt from the Clinton camp came compliments of Stan Greenberg, who used to poll for President Clinton, and James Carville, the campaign consultant who got him elected.

Their firm, Democracy Corps, put out a new poll that showed Republicans leading Democrats 48%-42% in the race to control the House of Representatives. It showed Democrats trailing Republicans on almost all economic issues. It showed Obama with the sinking job-approval number of 45%. Voters think, by big majorities, he is a big spender and too liberal.

A number of polls have shown similar numbers.

But then came clincher—the poisonous “S” word—the word even Republicans do not dare utter for fear of raising the wrath of the New York Times and Washington Post.

The two former Clinton aides asked respondents if the word “Socialist” describes Obama very well or well. Answer: 55% said yes.

Republicans, you have your gift. A good majority of Americans think the President is a Socialist. Feel free to use the adjective yourselves, compliments of two Democratic operatives who used to work for the Clintons.

Carville and Greenberg are not alone.

In a Financial Times article headlined “Obama faces growing credibility crisis,” no fewer than two ex-Clinton aides help back up the headline.

“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, tells the Times. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”

And this:

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official, in the Times story. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Got it? Clinton loyalists are telling reporters Obama is a Socialist in the eyes of Americans and he is powerless to turn things around.

The President has plenty of critics for his handling of the BP oil gusher. But it is noteworthy that former Clinton people are as nasty as the rest.

“President Obama’s address to the nation from the Oval Office was, to be frank, vapid,” blogged former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Salon.com. “If you watched with the sound off, you might have thought he was giving a lecture on the history of the Interstate Highway System. He didn’t have to be angry but he had at least to show passion and conviction. It is, after all, the worst environmental crisis in the history of the nation.”

Carville is perhaps the most outspoken Obama oil-spill critic on TV. On CNN and ABC, he has painted the President as inept, not wanting to be bothered by an environmental disaster so he left the fix up to BP.

“The political stupidity of this is just unbelievable,” Carville said. “The President of the United States could have come down here. He could have been involved with the families of these 11 people [killed in explosion]. He could have demanded a plan in anticipation of this. He just looks like he’s not involved in this. You’ve got to get down here and take control of this. Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving. We’re about to die down here.”

It would be naive to think that the 2008 bitter Obama-Clinton primary battles, ones that had her red-faced husband lecturing reporters, have not left sour feelings. Obama dealt with it by bringing her onboard. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Recently, pundits have noted some daylight between the President and the secretary. She talked in an interview of the importance of good fiscal policy to keep America strong—a perceived shot at the President and the burgeoning debt. While the White House sniped at Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, the secretary of State stood by him.

While Clintonites pile on Obama, the President keeps trying to keep them close. He just named Jacob Lew, a former Clinton aide who went with Hillary to the State Department, as his new budget director. The White House called in an aide to the former President recently to discuss his 2010 campaign schedule.

There was a good reason. Clinton had just endorsed a Democrat for the U.S. Senate from Colorado. It was not the man Obama wanted.

Former Clinton adviser turned Hillary-watcher Dick Morris said on Fox News that Hillary still wants the presidency more than anything else in the world.

Morris wrote in June, “As always with the Clintons, the signs are made evident by a carefully choreographed two-step in which they fill their separate roles, one as an outsider and the other as a loyal insider with the Obama Administration. But never doubt that everything these two do is coordinated and orchestrated.”

Mark Larson, a popular conservative talk show host in San Diego, has been watching the Clintons for years.

“I think she knows very well what is happening and could happen,” he told HUMAN EVENTS. ” Still being the ‘good soldier’ as secretary of State, but she has to know that if Obama continues down this disaster path that even her biggest detractors would welcome her back, giving fresh consideration to a candidacy. So much of what conservatives feared about Clinton is nothing in comparison to the actions, behavior and spin in this administration.”

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suddenly have abandoned plans to assess damages against an attorney whose clients are challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president after he argued that if there was to be punishment, he would have the right to know whether the defendants could have mitigated their injury by publicly releasing Obama’s birth documentation.

The decision came from Judge Dolores Sloviter in the Kerchner vs. Obama case handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court had ordered Apuzzo to explain why defense costs shouldn’t be assessed against him for the “frivolous” appeal.

However, her newest order denied Apuzzo’s request to reconsider the case and stated “based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause.”

“I think the court was really afraid of this – ‘Should the court be inclined to find that I am liable under Rule 38 for defendants’ damages and costs, I respectfully request that the court recognize and enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the (certificate of live birth), his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents.'”

“They really didn’t want to risk Mr. Apuzzo having a legal reason to get BO’s BC,” he wrote.

I knew they were stupid people around i didnt expect her to prove it soblatantly.

Joan Walsh: Sherrod Can Call Fox and Breitbart Racist Because Father Was Killed By White Man.

You what? So if a White lady’s father is muredered by a black man, do you think they would let her speak however she likes?

So anyone who has had a family member murdered can get a free pass on making racist statement if it applies to the race of the murderer? Does that also apply to their religion also? Where would that end.

I taught in predominantly AA schools for two decades. The anti-white attitude increased over the years and was becoming unbearable by the time I left, in 2007.

Personally, I got along with all the staff probably because I adored AA music – R&B, gospel, – and spent several months of my curriculum on the influence of black musical genres on American music.

But I can’t tell you how many times I would be in the “music room,” which was separated by a thin curtain from the cafeteria, where staff would hang out as the school was so crowded, and I would hear angry outbursts like “that white so and so” and the “honky fuckermother.”

I would always be embarrassed both for myself and the speakers for their crassness and I would slip out of the music room and make my way across the cafeteria ostensibly to use the bathroom just so they would realize they were being overheard.

Over the years the attitudes worsened and included the parents, many egged on by the AA staff, and of course filtered down to the kids.

The kids always loved music and except for the severe over-crowding and the seven classes a day I got along well with them. But the adults, both staff and parents, affected their attitude toward white teachers.

It was a common gripe that there weren’t enough AA teachers but the issue was there were not enough candidates for teaching positions with adequate credentials – college degree, teaching certificates- to hire.

I had black parents accuse me, twice, of racism or physical abuse toward their kids, just because they wanted a basis for lawsuits against the city.

In both cases I was fully exonerated, the union defended me and the accusers had to back down.

But it wasn’t pleasant.

At the end of my career I was almost grateful to have gotten sick so I had an excuse to get the he11 out of there.

The past three yeas of recovery, chemo, weakness, has been awful but it was preferable to remaining in the worsening racil quagmire in the public schools.

And that was BEFORE squat was nominated and the selected. I can’t imagine what it’s like now.

wbboei
July 25th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Another excerpt from my paper which may interest you:
—————————————————-
The future is always uncertain. In this case, the only thing we can say with confidence is if there is to be a day of reckoning for the American People then we want Hillary not Barack. Why? Because experience has shown that when push comes to shove Barack will sell out the American People, whereas Hillary will not.
_____________________________

That is why the constituents who are that unfamiliar with the Clinton’s ethical conduct need to be told over and over again, she will never throw them under the bus. If it were not so… I wouldn’t support her myself. And it wouldn’t hurt if they picked up a book from time to time reading Hillary’s autobiography to catch up with us.
______________________________________

turndownobama
July 26th, 2010 at 1:20 am

jbstonesfan
July 25th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
“I also believe had Spitzer not gotten into trouble, he would have helped Hillary.”
=============
He WAS helping Hillary. He was about to explain and defend the Superdelegates.
I suspect that’s WHY his trouble became news — just in time to stop him.
____________________________________

Yes, turndown. Spitzer was a staunch ally of Hillary’s. We were speaking of help during the election not in general. Generally, Spitzer’s alliance was a given. They were that close. However, Spitzer was under investigation early on, much earlier than the questionable treatment of the Super-delegates.

The more I read about the Journolist comments, current press trying to redirect ire from Obama, lying scumbags appearing on TV to pigeonhole the SOS (who told that SOB he could demand a sitting SOS and former Presidential candidate who won the nomination he could demand anything?), and the increasing hysteria about the 2012 elections( yes 2012 as he is sending political teams to spread the good news about the oil geyser in Florida and he is doing zip for 2010 Congressional candidates) the more apparent that social class (both perceived and real) is the center of their universe. Race, gender, age, educational and economic opportunity are all used to attack anyone not perceived to be in their class (or tribe). Everything this WH does, says, eats, vacations, hobbies, dogs, screams their obsession with social class. Those not in their class are not to use air conditioning (idiotic WP elitist writers who basically says let the old, poor, and anyone out of their area boil), Mrs Obama’s obsession with designer vegetables, shoes, and execise for her aging arms, Bar Harbour for god’s sakes, constant soirees in the WH with everyone wearing sparkly dresses (except some of the men), etc and et al. These are the social climbers from hell with a high school clique supporting them. The race baiting, misogyny, suspension of the first amendment, degradation of opponents, name calling, sexual slurs, isolating, sucking up to moneyed and educated elites is all about class. Of which they do not have any.

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama, who rocketed to the White House promising “change you can believe in,” is now telling voters they shouldn’t change a thing.

His message for the fall elections, which are looking ominous for his Democrats, is that Republicans caused the nation’s economic troubles, but he and the Democrats are starting to fix them. So stick with the Democrats and don’t go back to the GOP.

“This is a choice between the policies that led us into the mess or the policies that are leading out of the mess,” Obama said recently in Las Vegas.

snip……………….

Proving a negative is a hard argument to make, but Obama keeps at it. He has little choice.

Sometimes, the president sounds confident the message will get through.

“I know that sometimes people don’t remember how bad it was, and how bad it could have been,” Obama said in Racine, Wis.

So this election year, instead of beckoning voters to change the future, Obama is just hoping they’ll remember the past.

Trouble is, it’s a tough sell to voters who’ve seen little progress.

Unemployment is stuck near double digits and polls show many voters have decided Obama’s policies are to blame, not his predecessor’s.

Obama often frames the argument by saying that Republicans had their chance to drive, then drove the car into a ditch and shouldn’t get the keys back. But voters may be concluding that Democrats, who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, have had their chance at the wheel, too, and haven’t gotten very far.”From the American public’s point of view, the people in charge at this point are the people who own the problem,” said Andrew Kohut, head of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

The Democrats stll do not understand that in today’s tweeting, blogging, computerized world we expect quick results, and their actions should have lead to some results by now, or so the American Public think.

In the primary he had very little record if any to prove he had done anything. Rememeber how they claimed he had accomplished something, but others had always fabricated it for him. Today, he has had 1 1/2 years to make a dent in the economic problems facing the nation. He can publish the list of things he feels he has accomplish; however, it is the economy, stupid, and there the accomplishments are lacking. It is one thing to create a fantasy of accomplishments to obtain that dream job. But once you have it, it is a little hard for the Journolist to cover you, when there is very little accomplished there after, specifically in the job department. If you are going to spend money (Public option which is a good thing), people need jobs to pay for it.

President Obama, who just a few weeks ago said he doesn’t have time for TV “theater,” will appear on ABC’s “The View” Thursday. The show claims it is the first time a sitting president has done daytime TV.

It follows a pattern of this presidency I’ve described often here as: When the going gets rough, the president goes on TV — often in entertainment venues that guarantee he wil;l be celebrated and can control his message. This visit looks like a direct response bto the criticism he has received for his administration firing USDA worker Shirley Sherrod last week.

So what’s he doing this for, he would’nt be doing it unless they had some load of guff to spew.

I think it is embarrassing to the citizens that a sitting president is appearing on the View rather than going to the Gulf to brainstorm ways to clean up the spill and help those affected get their lives back, never mind caring for the environment.

This is shameless and despicable. WTF are these idiot women to have access to the most powerful person in the country? Just the thought of Brayhard and Whoopie yucking it up with Squat is obscene.

Geithner LIES to the public on National TV… and the next day print news exposes him for the LIAR he really is”
____________________________________

Six Reasons to Expect Slow Economic Growth Ahead

As investors, we’re trained to seek insight from the constant news flow of weekly and monthly data updates. And the markets certainly seem to react to the latest reports, the freshest news. But the underlying strength or weakness in any economy is reflected by long-term trends that aren’t always visible in the short-term data.

Here are six long-term trends which are unlikely to turn on a dime. Each offers a serious headwind to future growth in the U.S. economy.

1. The U.S. money supply isn’t rising enough to fuel strong growth. It’s almost counter-intuitive: How, when the federal government is borrowing and spending trillions of dollars, can it be that the quantity of money in savings and checking accounts, money market funds and other liquid assets is barely growing?

Hoisington Investment Management Company recently issued a report that showed how M2, the broadest measure of money in bank accounts, money market funds, etc., has grown by a meager 1.7% in the past year, the slowest growth in fifteen years.

That reflects how little of the bailout and stimulus funds have actually ended up in the real economy. The correlation between slow growth in M2 and in the GDP is strong.

2. The job market is dominated by temp and freelance/contract work. While temp jobs are rising at a strong 19%, year over year, private payrolls minus temp jobs are down 0.7%, meaning that permanent jobs in the private sector are still declining.

I addressed the long-term forces which are transforming America into “freelance nation” in a DailyFinance column back in January.

3. Financial insecurity is rising. American households are caught in a vice: Even as wages stagnate and long-term unemployment erodes household incomes, the assets such as home equity which provided a cushion have also fallen. Medical and education costs are also rising, further squeezing households.

As a result, the risk of “experiencing a major economic loss” is climbing. Those households which can save money have powerful reasons to sock away a cash cushion to weather possible emergencies such as job loss or major out-of-pocket medical expenses, and few incentives to spend all their disposable income.

The Pew Research Center recently issued a report, How the Great Recession Has Changed Life in America, which documents the new frugality and the punishing effects of the recession on household expectations, security and wealth.

According to the report, median household wealth decreased by a whopping 19% from 2007 to 2009. Coupled with the poor job market, this has changed Americans’ perceptions and planning. When asked to predict their financial behaviors once the economy recovers, 48% say they plan to save more, 31% say they plan to spend less and 30% say they plan to borrow less.

All of those trends suggest there will be significantly less consumer spending in the years ahead-a sobering prospect in an economy which relies on household spending for 70% of its GDP.

4. Home values are still declining in much of the country. Houses are the bedrock of middle-class wealth, but that bedrock is still shaky. Sales have fallen, and outside of a few pockets where the numbers have been driven higher by investor buying and shrinking inventories, the housing market remains weak.

Foreclosures are still rising at a record pace, and the gap between what Americans lost in the housing bust and what they’ve recovered in value in the past year is in the trillions of dollars.

5. Households have gone from borrowing freely against their home equity to paying down debt. This process is called deleveraging, and this chart illustrates how equity extraction via mortgage refinancing has plummeted. The total amount Americans owe on their mortgages actually began declining in 2008 and continues to do so, according to the Federal Reserve’s Flow of Funds report.

I have heard lots of positive press from Fox about Hillary in the last few days. …for the exception of Hannity….the only thing I like about Hannity is he never gives Obama a break…he does give a few to Hillary from time to time.

——–
I feel the same way about Hannity, he has even given a few to Bill lately, but he still only roots for his team.
He is also saying, “Only Republican women get trashed……”, which is BS.

At 62, Clinton is not too old for another run, especially if it comes in just two years. Republicans have been promoting the idea. After all, a Democratic challenge to Obama could help secure a Republican victory in 2012.
———-
The Rethugs best shot is running against the messiah with the plastic halo, they are kidding themselves if they think they can put anyone up against Hillary and win.

shadowfax
That is one of the most irritating things that Hannity says, but if he were to include Hillary, he’d have to confess to be one of the ones who gave Hillary the hardest time.

Mittens or Gingrich…just let me puke now! Mittens and Gingrich are two of the most misognistic aholes there is….I hope these dumbass women on the right realize that.
———————————————————————————–

and then walked right up to the edge of the DMZ, within inches of nervous North Korean soldiers

———————————————————————–

Don’t you just love Hillary’s testicular fortitude….she was tempting those assholes, if she were President the world would calm right down…they’d know not to FU*K with her…LOL! Obama doesn’t even have a penis much less testicles! LOL!

————
Just like the word, ‘racist’ is thrown in as a nasty roadblock on everything unkind towards the Fraud, I HATE, HATE, HATE when folks fling out the word ‘birther’ to those that talk about Barry’s nonexistent birth certificate.

To me, it’s ugly and seems like a double hit, implies tinfoil hat wearing and a dig on giving birth, (women).

Confloyd
Don’t you just love Hillary’s testicular fortitude….she was tempting those assholes, if she were President the world would calm right down…they’d know not to FU*K with her…LOL! Obama doesn’t even have a penis much less testicles! LOL!

———
Hillary doesn’t need to be compared to having male parts strength.

There is little doubt how strong a woman can fight for what she believes in, be protective and smart. It just frosts my cupcakes to still have to ‘prove’ a woman’s value in 2010.

This is male pecking order attitude stuff, women don’t need a pecking order, the smart ones always float to the top. 😉

This was posted on PUMApac, but I couldn’t get it to work there, so here is the youtube version made by Hillbuzz.

Personally, I think the silly music in the background and the ending are really distasteful in terms of trying to pass it on to Obots so they might learn about the Jornolists. Also, seems like they ‘forgot’ to mention that these people really were out to destroy Hillary before they attacked McCain.

WikiLeaks.org, the online organization that posted tens of thousands of classified military field reports about the Afghan war on Sunday, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations.

And that was BEFORE squat was nominated and the selected. I can’t imagine what it’s like now.
**********
It’s worse…A friend is one of two non-AA teachers remaining in an inner city elementary school. Her books and supplies are stolen by other teachers and she can leave nothing in the teachers lounge, including her lunch without it being stolen. She is excluded from teacher conferences and for the past four years is no longer allowed to participate in assigning students to next years classes. At the end of this year, she was walking down the hall and the principal walks up behind her, grabs her arm and says; “How do you do it”….Ms “A”:”How do I do What??”…Principal: Your class again scored highest on the “State competency test”.

Like I said, personally I never had the racist vitriol directed at me except for the two charges by parents who were, ironically, egged on by waspy teach-for America-do-gooders who no doubt became future obamaphiliacs.

Many of the white administrators deserved what they got to the extent that they, too, were racist (secretly, of course) and the black staff knew it.

It was quite a nasty toxic racist brew. The last few years the AA staff ramped up their white hatred and they were the ones who got the plum- no-work-hi-pay assignments. In fact. many of the new black teachers refused to go into the classroom and instead held out for “support” staff positions, an educational euphamism for getting a free ride.

Meanwhile the scores plummeted, the schools devolved into chaos, disciplibne was non-existent and at the end it was like walking into a combat zone every day.

Although I dealt with all 1000 kids I saw weekly, it took its toll and it was infuruating to see half the staff sitting around on their asrses drinking coffee and planning staff parties while the other half of us did the heavy lifting for them.

Oh well. I guess I got sick when I did for a reason. There is no way I would have lasted another couple of years after Squat was (s)elected.

But I am a witness for the racism-works both ways mantra. And this was in a northeastern city.

Race, gender, age, educational and economic opportunity are all used to attack anyone not perceived to be in their class (or tribe). Everything this WH does, says, eats, vacations, hobbies, dogs, screams their obsession with social class. Those not in their class are not to use air conditioning (idiotic WP elitist writers who basically says let the old, poor, and anyone out of their area boil), Mrs Obama’s obsession with designer vegetables, shoes, and execise for her aging arms, Bar Harbour for god’s sakes, constant soirees in the WH with everyone wearing sparkly dresses (except some of the men), etc and et al. These are the social climbers from hell with a high school clique supporting them. The race baiting, misogyny, suspension of the first amendment, degradation of opponents, name calling, sexual slurs, isolating, sucking up to moneyed and educated elites is all about class. Of which they do not have any.
——————————————————-
The gaudy gouche and garrish behavior you are seeing from MO is typical of the noveau riche as defined below. Washington DC is chalk full of people like that. Lawyers, lobbyists, and other professionals. They want everyone to know they have arrived–especially the old wealth who make a game of slamming the door in their face. Perhaps they think they can ride on Obama’s coattails if he manager to crash to gate of old money.

That phenomenon is manifest throughout history. If you look at the ante bellum south for example, you will see that the institution of slavery had become an embarrassment to the old planter families of Virginia many of whom freed their slaves. But in the bar rooms, brothels and cotton markets of the deep south, where fortunes were being made from it in a single generation, it was a big deal. These noveau riche built mansions like Tara in Gone With The Wind to show off their new found wealth. In that respect MO is no different.

Nouveau riche
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Nouveau riche (disambiguation).
Nouveau riche (French for “new rich”), or new money, refers to a person who has acquired considerable wealth within his or her generation.[1] This term is generally to emphasize that the individual was previously part of a lower socioeconomic rank, and that such wealth has provided the means for the acquisition of goods or luxuries that were previously unobtainable. The term can also be used in a derogatory fashion, for the purposes of social class distinction, to describe persons with newfound wealth as lacking the experience or finesse to use wealth in the same manner as old money—persons from families who have been wealthy for multiple generations

jesus and you thought it could not get any worse……..and here we go again, Mr Sherrod this time. Limbaugh is apparently already on it.

New Sherrod Video: Husband of Shirley Sherrod Gave Black Separatist Speech in January 2010

A new Sherrod video has surfaced, this one of the sainted Shirley Sherrod’s husband Charles making a black separatist speech, reportedly given this past January.

The video was published by the Riehl World View blog at YouTube today. Like the infamous BigGovernment.com video of Shirley Sherrod, this video is presented as an excerpt and the precise setting is not given. However, Charles Sherrod’s comments are unambiguous in their anti-white, black separatist sentiments.

The four-minute-thirty-three-second excerpt, apparently unedited, shows Sherrod talking about the $13 million settlement by the USDA for the racial discrimination lawsuit brought by Sherrod, his wife and their black farmer cooperative New Communities.

Sherrod says one of the purposes of the Georgia-based cooperative was to feed “our people in the North” of the United States. He goes on to urge young blacks to use their money for the “total liberation” of blacks and to find a way to trust each other so that their riches don’t end up in the hands of whites.

The video ends with Sherrod appealing, “We must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections.”

“Young people, you will be making more money than we ever dreamed of. Please find a way, find a way that we can trust each other so that our moneys can work for our total liberation.

“We have ideas, inventions, athletic talent. But our labor and our moneys and our contracts usually end up in the white folks’ hands and pockets.

“When will we trust our own?

“Finally we must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black. And we must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interests.”

While the liberal media has worked to portray Shirley Sherrod as an enlightened reformed racist, she smears anyone against her political agenda, especially whites, as racist. In the speech that garnered her notoriety, Sherrod smeared Republicans as racists for being opposed to Obama’s takeover of healthcare. Last week she smeared Fox News as wanting blacks to live like they did under Jim Crow and she smeared Big Government publisher Andrew Breitbart as a racist who wants blacks to be enslaved again.

Like her husband, Sherrod also speaks in racist terms of “my people” and “his own kind.”

I’m guessing the video won’t be far behind………or will they hide it this time.

These sentiments were the norm in the schoool system where I taught and had been for many years. Maybe that’s why Squat did not impress me in the least. I had seen dozens of “pulpit pimps” during the years I taught in the trenches and squat couldn’t hold a handle to some of them who, although racist, came across as quite authentic and obviously believed what they were saying.

Not like the Sharptons and Jacksons for whom race has always been a get-ahead-in-life-without-having-to pay card.

At least they had the power of their convictions whether you agreed or disagreed with them and obviously I didn’t. The younger white teachers however were often seduced by the “black MAN against the system” spiel. It was never the BLACK woman. It was and is a male-dominated group as most of you who haven’t lived/worked among those populations know from the disgustingly vile misogynistic rap lyrics.

None of this surprises me in the least.

Don’t get me wrong. I knew many decent, honest and wonderful AA’s. My problem with squat is that the wrong AA got the wrong position at the wrong moment in history.

And then, instead of being grateful for having advanced far beyond his capabilities and what he deserved and buckling down to truly fill the shoes he was gifted, he believed his own press and set out to destroy those of us who didn’t buy his bull.

Chelsea Clinton has always been a special kid. I met her first at a White House event around St.Patrick’s Day in the mid 1990s.

She was a gawky, teenager then, growing pains very evident, but what impressed was her nice easy manner and her ability to make you feel at ease.

The Dad’s political magic had rubbed off somewhere.

I remember her mother Hillary saying that Jackie Kennedy had been a great inspiration and source of advice to her on how to bring up Chelsea.

Indeed, when you compare those two poised and successful ladies, Caroline Kennedy and Chelsea Clinton, you can see the similarities.

Chelsea and I next met during one of her father’s triumphant trips to Ireland. I knew she had done her thesis at Stanford on the Irish peace process and was delighted to discuss it with her. She impressed me with her grasp of the topic.

We agreed it had been one of her father’s greatest moments in power when the IRA ceasefire happened after he had taken a huge risk on the Gerry Adams visa.

The next time we met was when her mother was running for senate in New York and was attending our inaugural Irish Voice Top 50 Women. Before going on we chatted backstage. It was clear Chelsea was suffering from a haymaker of a cold. She was in bad shape and her mother was quite worried about her, wanting to cancel the rest of her schedule.

Chelsea insisted she go on however, a steely determination evident that her mother not lose a single opportunity to get her message across on why she was running for senate. The dynamic between mother and daughter was evident to me that night.

They are quite simply, best friends, who have shared trauma, heartache and thrilling triumph together.

Close staffers told me that Hillary was simply much better on the stump, in much better form, when Chelsea was around. A daughter can share no greater love than that.

The most recent time I met them was during the New Hampshire primary when Hillary was down and out but fighting back like a tigress. Chelsea, who had seemed nervous and tentative speaking at public events in Iowa suddenly hit her stride too on college campuses and they pulled off a famous victory.

My sense of Chelsea is never to rule out a run at public office for her. She has a combination of the parent’s dynamic populism which could wow crowds in an instant if she ever decided to run.

That is for long in the future.

This week she marries.

If she is half the wife that she is the daughter to Hillary and Bill to her new husband he will be a lucky man indeed.

JanH, Awh, that is a cute pic of Chelsea. My daughters are about the same age. Chelsea is a natural…I saw her talking to JaneQPublic and she has the same ability to make someone feel confortable in their presence.

Its just awful that she is not getting married in the WH…I think she would have had the damocrats hadn’t cheated her mom out of the Presidency. I can remember when LBJ’s and the Nixon daughters wed at the WH….the world watched…just like they did when Princess Dianna married Prince Charles.

I make no secret of my support for Hillary, so it is hardly surprising that many people I know from all parts of the political spectrum have come forward and told me after the fact that they wish Hillary was president.
&&&&&&&&

wbboei:

I hear it all the time, and from across the political spectrum: centrists, indies, repubs, dems, lefties.

Probably “Sleeveless” Michelle Obama yells it at “dummyhead” every day: “Barack, you are spineless and lazy. Dat Hillary she-bit*h wouldn’t be getting pushed around like this. Sheet. Would’ve been better if she would have won, except for me not being First Lady, and the kids having all these nice things, and the endless vacations. So don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you won. It’s just that we’d be having more fun if you had more experience and weren’t seen as driving the country into the ditch.”

moononpluto: Shirley Sherrod as an enlightened reformed racist, she smears anyone against her political agenda
——————–
I’ve not watched her closely but I can say unequivocally, she is no victim. Saw a few seconds of her on TV somewhere responding to whether she would take a job if offered to her. She said essentially “It depends on the terms.” No crime to feel that way, but one tough woman. I think she feels that now, more is owed her.

confloyd
July 26th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
JanH, Awh, that is a cute pic of Chelsea. My daughters are about the same age. Chelsea is a natural…
&&&&&&&&

I saw Hillary and Chelsea at the Mayfair Diner speech in April 2008 in Northeast Philadelphia. I took pictures of Hillary and Chelsea from like several feet away, and Chelsea signed my tee-shirt (I had nothing else to sign).

a few days earlier, at the Philly debate, I saw a guy with funniest, cutest button, “Put Sox Clinton Back in the White House”, with a picture of the furry feline. At the Mayfair Diner speech, I came across a vendor, and bought two of them. With one to spare, and Chelsea right in front of me, I gave her one, and watched as she took it, looked at it, and saw her start smiling. So that was the best.

rgb44hrc
Thats a wonderful story. I was only able to see Hillary in Waco, of coarse that was great and she signed my “Living History” book.
What a great idea for tshirts “Put Sox Clinton back in the WH”. He must of been a cat lover!

BTW, I read an article last night that Hillary and Bill married in the living room of the first house he bought for her. If I remember right it was a small two bedroom house. Hillary was so busy she waited until the last minute to buy her wedding dress and she got her wedding dress off the rack at Dillard’s dept. store. They went to Acapulco for their honeymoon. The crux of the story was that Chelsea wedding is probably pretty close to 2 million.

Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone in an interview decried what he called the Jewish lobby’s control over Washington’s foreign policy and said that Hitler’s actions should be put “into context.”

Stone in an interview with the Sunday Times also said that “Jewish domination of the media” has prevented an honest discussion about the Holocaust.

Jewish organizational and Israeli officials condemned the remarks, which were published Sunday.

The article by reporter Camilla Long is not available online without a paid subscription to the newspaper, although British bloggers and other newspapers have printed excerpts.

During the interview, Stone said that Jews were dictating U.S. foreign policy and that the Jewish lobby “are hard workers.”

“They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington,” he said, adding that Israel has messed up U.S. foreign policy “for years.”

Stone, the winner of three Academy Awards, including as best director for “Platoon” and “Born on the Fourth of July,” has a Jewish father. He also directed such films as “Wall Street,” “JFK” and “Nixon.”

On Hitler, Stone said that the German leader “did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 million. Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein—German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”

Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, in a brief statement said that “We are deeply offended. These are words of hate and a disgraceful evocation of anti-Semitism. Shame on Oliver Stone.”

“They are nauseating, anti-Semitic and racist,” the Jerusalem Post quoted Edelstein as saying. “Not only is he showing ignorance, he is demonizing Jews for no reason and returning to the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’

“When a man of Stone’s stature speaks in this way, it can bring waves of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment, and may even damage Jewish communities and individuals.”

Stone recently completed a documentary on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and is working on a documentary series about American history.

As a longtime supporter and lover of this outstanding blog I have finally come out of lurker status to register here. I’m really loving that you are pounding on the JournOLister punks, as they so richly deserve. I’ve been giving all these posts a standing ovation. Keep them coming admin please.

Being from Michigan I would like to help straighten out an important factual error, in bold on part of the following statement, that is being repeated but I haven’t seen corrected yet:“… why the Fraud was allowed by the DNC to declare victory on June 3 when he was 350 votes short of the required number of pledged delegates is something that everyone can understand and no one can answer (as well as the question of why he was given 29-1/2 delegates in Michigan when he wasn’t on the ballot).” [Emphasis mine]

There is some slight confusion as to what they tried to split (1/2 delegates stripped seating), which is understandable two years later. I could come up with hundreds of links but if you review the last YouTube above with Ickes at the RBC fraud meeting he starts talking about the number of delegates at the 4:09 mark.

It is 55 + 4 stolen delegates for a total of 59. Sorry, but they did NOT split the unearned 59 delegates they colluded on, stole, and freely handed over to Obama at the RBC meeting wrapped up in a big shiny Brazile bow. There was no “29 1/2 delegates” at any time. The Obama supporters and actual Reps in our state legislature wanted and tried very hard to split the TOTAL number of MI’s 128 delegates 50/50, allocated between Hillary and Obama (64 each if they would of prevailed on those unethical machinations). Not only did they try to split the whole thing 50/50 after the fact, but his supporters and campaign were pressuring our state big time to do a “do-over”, and/or change our primary rules to attempt a do-over to change it to a caucus instead. Of course they wanted a caucus in MI & FL, look how well that worked for them to cheat in 14 other states. Thankfully that was shot down too. Our state was already in a budget crisis to the point of a state gov complete shutdown just a few months before, and couldn’t afford it. They’d already wasted the money to reprint ballots when EdBama & Co removed their names the first time at the last minute. In the part I quoted I totally agree with this: “…June 3 when he was 350 votes short of the required number of pledged delegates…” point. Exactly, we screamed about it. And by the way, the date they wanted the MI do-over? June 3rd.

The facts are that Hillary won 55% of the MI primary vote and received 73 delegates; Uncommitted after much in-state outright campaigning won 40% and received 55 delegates. They absolutely handed him all of those unearned 55 delegates even though exit polling showed he would of only gotten 23% or less of the 55 Uncommitted, IF his name would of been there but wasn’t by his own underhanded means. Exit polling also showed Hillary would of received 10% of the 55 Uncommitted delegates (on top of her earned 73), to help insure she would of had at least some of her delegates seated as we were being promised from day one that Uncommitted would be seated regardless.

To add insult to injury they stole 4 more delegates from Hillary mainly based on something like 30,000 non-countable “Write-In” votes even though the media in our local newspapers, radio, and TV made it clear for weeks before the primary that all of the candidates that deliberately removed their names from our ballot had also deliberately failed to file by the deadline to qualify for Write-In ballot eligibility. That no Write-Ins could be counted. Those 4 extra delegates they continued on to rob from Hillary came from ILLEGAL write-in votes (and phantom exit poll possibilities) that they decided to count after all, breaking our state election laws. Chew on that for a minute to let the audacity of depravity sink in.

The final tally from the May 31st RBC fiasco was 69-59, effectively now only 4 delegates short of the original 64 number that ObamaCo was after, for not being on the ballot at all. What a deal, what a steal. What a farce. If they would of followed the real rules and real laws, Obama should of had and deserved ZERO delegates from MI. And since he did illegally campaign in FL further breaking the rules, any delegates from there for him should of been voided to zero. At the convention Hillary should of and would of received her 10% share of the Uncommitted delegates along with her 73. Her real total in MI would of been 65% of the vote if it would have been a normal primary.

admin said: “The voters were robbed. The candidate of the voters was robbed.” Indeed. Most of all, America was robbed of the best president of our lifetime. It’s unforgettable and unforgivable what they did. I for one have been saying all along: Hillary 2012. If she doesn’t run I’m writing her in. Maybe they’ll finally count my vote in Michigan this time.

The Unpresidential President
==========================
Barack Obama has managed a rare feat: The longer he holds office, the more he diminishes in stature.

BY James W. Ceaser
August 2, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 43

From charisma to populism—this is the slippery slope down which Barack Obama has been sliding over the past two years. In June 2008, Obama the candidate described his nomination as “the moment when . . . our planet began to heal.” In June 2010, Obama the president promised his partisans he would find an “ass to kick.”

With the peculiar magic of his presidential campaign now a faded memory, Obama is shoring up support by the cruder method of divisive appeals. Long before the current (already hugely extended) campaign season began, Obama made it a practice to target opposition symbols (“the insurance industry,” “speculators,” “a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” the oil companies), call out and assail individual opponents (Rush Limbaugh, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner), and refer disparagingly to the Tea Party movement and Republicans in general (“this crowd”). More than a half-year before the midterm elections, he tried to revive his electoral base of “young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women” by taking a page from Al Gore’s 2000 campaign and embracing the shop-worn slogan, “I won’t stop fighting for you.”

An ass-thumping president frantically fighting for the little guy—it’s hard to imagine George Washington or Abraham Lincoln choosing to project an image of this kind. Barack Obama has managed a rare feat in American history: The longer he is president, the less presidential he has become. Obama has reversed the usual process of growth and maturation, appearing today far more like a candidate for the presidency—and a very ordinary one at that—than he did during the latter stages of his campaign.

He has also become practitioner-in-chief of what Alexander Hamilton referred to in Federalist 68 as the “little arts of popularity.” These arts, Hamilton well knew, would become an inevitable feature of democratic politics. But their spread from the province of political campaigns into the “normal” conduct of the presidency represents a dramatic reversal of the Founders’ design. The Constitution was crafted to prevent a campaign-style presidency; Obama is in the midst of creating one.

Although many will quibble about the right words for describing Obama’s leadership style, the general direction in which he has been heading is beyond dispute. In January 2010, the Obama-friendly Huffington Post ran a headline: “President Takes Populist Message on the Road.” Even some of his staunchest and most serious supporters, among them Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, have commended Obama for “turning toward populism.” By “populism” these observers were referring to divisive “us against them” appeals meant to rile up and energize a base.

What the president’s supporters add by way of explanation, if excuses for employing the “little arts of popularity” are still necessary, is that Obama is only responding to an unprecedented series of attacks from his detractors. But this explanation misses the main point, which is not the alleged behavior of gatherings of citizens, but the norms and standards of the presidency. Many past presidents endured harsh criticisms from the press and from popular movements of their day, but considered it unpresidential to respond in kind. Not Barack Obama, who has found his comfort zone in magnifying and then assaulting any kind of opposition. This excuse for Obama’s style also overlooks that he does not want for other means to get his message across. Obama has at his beck and call a staff of professional spokespersons, not to mention the editorial page of the New York Times.

It may be, however, that Obama has created a box for himself from which he cannot escape. He has so monopolized and personalized the public relations aspect of his office that now only his own voice can speak for the presidency. Profligacy in the use of public access—almost a speech a day—has made indirectness impossible. A president who has become his own chief point man puts at risk an asset that is helpful to his standing and vital for the nation’s political system: the dignity of the presidential office.

A few days ago, news said millions were going to be spend on Barry’s birthday. Were they talking about MOs hotel bills for her friends and family, plus a plane for he dog BO, or is something bigger planned for Barry and his Birthday somewhere else?

Maybe MO is pist because her fraud of a husband sucks as a President???

Michelle and Sasha Obama are heading to Spain for a little mother-daughter time. (AP/Alex Brandon)

Good summer for Spain: First, the World Cup. Next, a private visit from Michelle Obama.

The White House announced Monday that the first lady will travel next week to Spain for a “mother-daughter trip with longtime family friends.” Only Sasha, 9, will make the trip; Malia will be away at camp.

No further details were released, although Spanish press reports say the trip is scheduled for Aug. 4-8 at the Villa Padierna in Marbella. Although the visit is considered a private holiday, the first lady will meet with King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia. (This isn’t the first mother-daughter trip: last summer, Michelle, Malia and Sasha vacationed in France and England.)

The president won’t be on this trip. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama will celebrate his 49th birthday Aug. 4 with a fundraiser at the home of Chicago billionaire Neil Bluhm — guests will donate $30,000 each to the Democratic National Committee.

The family will vacation together later in August — a weekend on the Florida Gulf Coast and ten days Martha’s Vineyard.

Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

Eye surgery could delay hip operations An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

The Sunday Telegraph found the details of hundreds of cuts buried in obscure appendices to lengthy policy and strategy documents published by trusts. In most cases, local communities appear to be unaware of the plans.

Dr Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was “incredibly worried” about the disclosures.

He urged Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, to “get a grip” on the reality of what was going on in the NHS.

The Government has promised to protect the overall budget of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation increases, but said the service must make “efficiency savings” of up to £20 billion by 2014, which would be diverted back to the front line.

Mr Lansley said last month: “This protection for the NHS is protection for patients – to ensure that the sick do not pay for the debt crisis.”

Dr Carter said: “Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed.

‘‘The statements he makes may be well intentioned – but we would implore him to get a grip on the reality, because these kinds of cuts are incredibly worrying.”

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said the cuts were “astonishingly brutal” and expressed particular concern at moves to ration operations such as hip and knee operations.

“These are not unusual procedures, this is a really blatant attempt to save money by leaving people in pain,” she said.

“Looking at these kinds of cuts, which trusts have drawn up in such secrecy, it particularly worries me how far they disadvantage the elderly and the vulnerable.

‘‘We cannot return to the days of people waiting in pain for years for a hip operation or having to pay for operations privately.”

She added that it was “incredibly cruel” to draw up savings plans based on denying care to the dying.

On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care trust (PCT) in London agreed more than £50 million of savings in two years. The plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill.

As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition.

Bill Gillespie, the trust’s chief executive, said patients would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if that was their choice, and would be given support in their homes.

This week, Hertfordshire PCT plans to discuss attempts to reduce spending by rationing more than 50 common procedures, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic treatment.

Doctors across the county have already been told that their patients can have the operations only if they are given “prior approval” by the PCT, with each authorisation made on a “case by case” basis.

Elsewhere, new restrictions have been introduced to limit funding of IVF.

While many infertile couples living in Yorkshire had previously been allowed two cycles of treatment — still short of national guidance to fund three cycles — all the primary care trusts in the county are now restricting treatment to one cycle per couple.

A “turnaround” plan drawn up by Peterborough PCT intends to make almost £100 million of savings by 2013.

Its cuts include closing nursing and residential homes and services for the mentally ill, sending 500 fewer patients to hospital each month, and cutting £17 million from acute and accident and emergency services.

Two weeks ago, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals trust agreed plans to save £55 million in two years, with £20 million coming from about 500 job losses.

Yet, a month before the decision was taken, senior managers at a board meeting described how staff shortages were already causing delays for patients being diagnosed and treated for breast cancer.

In an effort to create as much time for golf for the president as possible, Mrs. Obama will travel to Spain next week for a vacation with oldest daughter Malia. This will leave Obama to his own devices, since younger daughter Sasha is at camp.

Mrs. Obama’s staff has decided to throw in a visit with King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia in order to provide a veneer of statesmanship to the Ritzy trip.

Obama will be left to CELEBRATE HIS BIRTHDAY ALONE August 4. It’s unclear if his mother-in-law is going on the trip, so if she stays he can spend his birthday with her.

The decision for Michelle to vacation alone in Spain was reportedly made after she saw one of the Spanish soccer players tear his jersey off after winning the World Cup.

Welcome. It is still hard for me to understand how all these areas failed us. How could the media actually be plotting against the voters. How could the DMC plot to give delegates to O which he did not win, and which could not be based on any statistic, like the exit polls. However, Michigan was not alone, the State Chair here worked very hard to still Delegates from HRC who won the state by placing people into Independent slots who were not independent.

Thanks for the warm welcome admin and NewMexicoFan. I made a small typo in my comment when I said, “The final tally from the May 31st RBC fiasco was 69-59, effectively now only 4 delegates short of the original 64 number that ObamaCo was after”. That should have said 5 delegates short of what they wanted. Guess I have too many ‘4 delegates’ on my mind. 😉 For him to get 59 out of Michigan was still 59 too many.

For all of us that are from MI & FL the whole thing was extra sad and maddening. We had no rallies or campaign stops to go see Hillary (or Bill) like everyone in all of the other states got to do. It was double maddening since I live in the Lansing area and had our Gov and mayor both Hillary supporters. I would have practically lived at the Lansing campaign office if we could of had one. Instead I was forced to travel to Ohio for 5 days (where I was physically attacked by a drunk Obot), and went down to Indiana four times. That got to be very expensive for this robbed/disenfranchised voter. I may have joked I was a PUMMA – Party Unity My Michigan Ass, but it wasn’t one bit funny to have to live it. I sure meant it and still do.

We live in a celebrity obsessed culture. Our assessment of political figures fully reflects that dynamic. And because of it, we tend to favor candidates who seem new, exciting and inspirational, over those who have the wisdom, experience and proven ability to govern. In 2008 we elected a rock star. The watchdog media assured us that his lack of executive experience was no problem, because he was black, he was intelligent, and he would surround himself with good people. Today, we see the results of that dysfunctional thought process. We have a President we do not know, who loves to campaign, but lacks the will and capacity to govern the country. One who is afraid to take that 3 am call and would prefer to make no decision at all.

The world is a dangerous place. We need sound leadership. Hence, we cannot afford to make this kind of electoral mistake again. So let me suggest a more reliable way to select political candidates. First, ignore the polls and the pundits. Second, discount the campaign hype and hyperbole. Third, ask yourself three (3) critical questions: i) is this candidate on my side? ii) do his or her policies serve my interests?, and iii) will he or she deliver what they promise? If you apply those criteria to the 2012 primary, I think you will agree that Hillary is clearly the right choice for the country and Barack is not.

With respect to the first question, the evidence proves that Hillary is on the side of the American People and Barack is not. For example, when Hillary is in the company of foreign leaders as Secretary of State, she vigorously defends our country and holds foreign leaders accountable for their actions. But, when Barack is in their company, he bows to the waist, apologizes for America and does not challenge them. Likewise, when Hillary is in the company of American elites, she asks them to join her in serving the American People, but when Barack is with those elites he maligns the American People by calling them bitter people who cling to their guns and religion. That is reason one why Hillary is the right choice for the country in 2012.

With respect to the second question, the evidence proves that the policies Hillary advocates serve the interests of the American People, whereas those which Barack has implemented do not. For example, candidate Hillary sought to protect entitlements like social security, create jobs and protect the middle class from the predations of foreign competition. By contrast, Mr. Obama has implemented programs which curtail entitlements, kill jobs and reward the elites. This pattern is manifest in every program he has pushed through Congress, from the stimulus plan, to health care reform, to financial reform. The net effect of his agenda has been to expand government, promote social engineering and create inextinguishable debt. That is reason two why Hillary is the right choice for the country in 2012.

With respect to the third question, the evidence proves that Hillary delivers on her promises and Barack does not. Hillary is a problem solver, she has a defined set of values and she knows how to get things done. As Senator, she passed more legislation than any freshman in history. As Secretary of State, she has expanded the role of the State Department, restored its morale and earned the confidence of world leaders. By contrast, Barack is a buck passer, he has no core values other than self advancement, and he is more interested in headlines than solutions. As a result Barack has broken every campaign promise he made in the primary and he has thrown political allies under the bus when it was expedient. That is reason three why Hillary is the right choice for the country in 2012.